Talk Elections

"There's an old saying in politics that goes, "There are two tickets out of New Hampshire." It basically means that if you don't finish in the top two in the Granite State, you're through. This is because the media attention, the money men, and the establishment will coalesce around the two top vote-getters that come out of NH, leaving all the others with nothing. From what I've heard about New Hampshire voters, it's basically a foregone conclusion that Rudy and McCain will take the top two spots up there."


I agree, McCain will definitley be either one or two in New Hampshire if he decides to run, but Im not so sure about Giuliani (im thinking he isnt going to run anyway.)  How do you think he would fair in New Hampshire if he decides to run? 

Regardless, do you think this statement holds any merrit?  What are your thoughts on the top 2 slots in New Hampshire being the only ones that matter etc...?

Not sure I buy it. What I REALLY don't buy is that ALL potential GOP candidates will be running. That's nonsense. No way both McCain and Rudy are in, and frankly, I'm a little skeptical that EITHER will be.

Edwards finished 4th in NH this past Dem primary and was percieved to be in the race (though that might be a stretch).

Finishing in the top 2 is important, particularly if there is a percieved front-runner (they can finish 2nd but probably not 3rd). Keep in mind Iowa has already occured, so Iowa's winner might be able to withstand a 3rd place finish, especially if they are a Southerner-- in the GOP at least, South Carolina is a pretty important primary.

In a Governor's duel with, say, Romney and Sanford taking center stage, Iowa would be a battle, Romney would have NH, and Sanford would have SC. That would make Iowa very important but also allow for a drawn-out primary campaign.

It really depends on who runs. There are a few candidates who need a great New Hampshire performance to stand a chance, such as Romney, Guliani, or Pataki. Any Northeasterner or Moderate must win or come close here.

If Mark Sanford gets 10%, he is by no means done, because he can win South Carolina, and most other southern states.

Chuck Hagel might do well in Iowa, but he has to do well in one of the first 2 primaries, or else his tires will be flat.

Jeb Bush will do reasonably well everywhere, but can't afford to tank here.

A Conservative Senator like Santorum, Frist, or Allen would all have enough other states in the bag, depending on who runs, that they wouldn't need a win here.

Sanford would do well in most primaries to win.


Hagel actually seems like the quintessential NH candidate.

It's a little different now than it once was.  A candidate who spends all of his time in NH can win that primary (McCain comes to mind), but do poorly everwhere else since they put all their hopes on the media glow following a NH win, while neglecting a nationwide organization. 

However, a candidate like Pataki would almost have to win NH in order to have any momentum whatsoever going into the South.   Hagel, a moderate who likes to cross swords with his own party, would need wins in IA and NH to fuel his campaign in the Midwest and Northeast, since the South would more than likely turn its back on him.

If McCain and Rudy do run, they will probably take the top two spots in New Hampshiere, but I doubt that it would help them elsewhere.  The conservative base of the party(in other states) is not going to vote for McCain because he crosses paths with Bush to much, and that same group isn't going to vote for Rudy because he is basically as socially liberal as I am.

I don't think the draft would play well in the land of "Live Free or Die"

I think it's garbage. It's all about how well you do compared to the rest, not your exact rank.  There's a threshold of double digits, though. Anything less and you're done. I think a conservative would come in second or a close third.

With Giuliani's gun history, the NRA would make him a target. He wouldn't get out of New Hampshire.

I'd pretty much welcome a moderate like Giuliani sinking without trace in New Hampshire, the further the GOP swings to the right the better

Dave

I hope Giuliani is the nominee- 'cuz we will tear him up on family values. This dude brought his mistress home and flaunted it. He would be toast already except for the fact he was in office the day enemies attacked his city. I would especially love to see Edwards or Bayh vs. Giuliani.

Nice to see you back TCash :)

I would say that the statement is too general, because it is hard to recover from a 3rd place NH finish in a vacuum, but many special circumstances can occur that can easily erase any impact from a crushing defeat there.

What did Clinton get in NH 1992?

Neither McCain nor Giuliani will be running for President in 2008 so I strongly disagree with this statement.

OMG, did you just actually completely agree with me?

Clinton finished second in NH.

Yes

Behind Tsongas?

Yes

2004 Dem:

1:  John Kerry (38%)
2:  Howard Dean  (26%)
3:  Wesley Clark  (12%)
4:  John Edwards  (12%)

2000 Dem:

1:  Al Gore (50%)
2:  Bill Bradley (46%)

2000 Rep:

1:  John McCain (48%)
2:  George Bush (30%)
3:  Steve Forbes (13%)

1996 Rep:

1:  Pat Buchanan (27%)
2:  Bob Dole  (26%)
3:  Lamar Alexander (23%)
4:  Steve Forbes  (12%)

1992 Dem:

1:  Paul Tsongas (33%)
2:  Bill Clinton (25%)
3:  Bob Kerry (11%)
4:  Tom Harkin (10%)
5:  Jerry Brown (8%)

1992 Rep:

1:  George Bush (53%)
2:  Pat Buchanan (37%)

1988 Rep:

1:  George Bush (38%)
2:  Bob Dole (29%)
3:  Jack Kemp (13%)
4:  Pierre S. DuPont (11%)
5:  Pat Robertson (9%)

1988 Dem:

1:  Michael Dukakis (36%)
2:  Dick Gephardt (20%)
3:  Paul Simon (17%)
4:  Jesse Jackson (8%)
5:  Al Gore (7%)
6:  Bruce Babbit (5%)
7:  Gary Hart (4%)

1984 Dem:
1: Gary Hart (37%)
2: Walter Mondale (28%)
3: John Glenn (12%)
4: Jesse Jackson (5%)

1980 Rep:
1: Ronald Reagan (50%)
2: George Bush[/B] (23%)
3: Howard Baker (12%)
4: John Anderson (10%)

1980 Dem:
1: Jimmy Carter (47%)
2: Ted Kennedy (37%)
3: Jerry Brown (10%)

1976 Dem:
1:  Jimmy Carter (28%)
2:  Mo Udall (23%)
3:  Birch Bayh (15%)
4:  Fred Harris (11%)
5:  R. Sargent Shriver (8%)
6:  Hubert Humphrey (6%)
7:  Henry Jackson (2%)
8:  George Wallace (1%)

1976 Rep:
1:  Gerald Ford (49%)
2:  Ronald Reagan (48%)

1972 Rep:
1:  Richard Nixon (68%)
2:  Paul McCloskey (20%)
3:  John Ashbrook (10%)

1972 Dem:
1:  Ed Muskie (46%)
2:  George McGovern (37%)

(The lack of other major candidates [Humphrey, Jackson, Wallace, Chisolm] is striking)

1968 Dem:
1:  LBJ (49.6%)
2:  Eugene McCarthy (41.4%)

(As LBJ had not yet pulled out, Humphrey hadn't yet entered the race)

1968 Rep:
1:  Richard Nixon (77%)
2:  Nelson Rockefeller (11%)

1964 Rep:
1:  Henry Cabot Lodge (36%)
2:  Barry Goldwater (22%)
3:  Nelson Rockefeller (21%)
4:  Richard Nixon (17%)

1960 Dem:
1:  JFK (85%)
2:  Paul Fisher (13%)

1956 Dem:
1:  Estes Kefauver (86%)
2:  Adlai Stevenson (15%)

1952 Dem:
1:  Estes Kefauver (55%)
2:  Harry Truman (44%)

1948 Rep:

1:  Dwight D. Eisenhower (50%)
2:  Bob Taft (39%)


So, yeah, every winner has been in the top two (or not in the race at all).  Although some late surgers (Edwards, Jesse Jackson, etc.) haven't performed well in New Hampshire...although they've never been able to come very close to taking the nomination.

But if Rudy and McCain do both run (very unlikely), and they place 1 and 2 in New Hampshire (more likely they'd split that segment of the vote enough so that one of the others takes 2nd place)...well, we'll likely see the rule broken in 2008.

If both McCain and Rudy run, they'll likely split the moderates of the GOP leaving the conservative darkhorse to place either 1st or 2nd.  That's my hope!

I think it's Frist's best hope too.

I think it's the Democrats' best hope too, then.

Frist needs to content himself to running for Gov of TN.  He isn't presidential material.

Agreed. Not that I want him to be gov though.

Off topic but I'm interested in your take on the Senate race- who do you think the GOP nom for Frist's seat will be?

As a Dem, I like Harold Ford, but I think his uncle has just killed his chances. Kurita doesn't do much for me. On the GOP side, I don't really like any of them. Corker seems the least die hard partisan, but I'm betting Blackburn surprises the conventional wisdom.

Ford is very, very bright.  Having talked to him on several occasions, I can testify that he is also a very likable guy, unlike his father and his uncle.  It is his family  connections that will most hurt him in any race for the Senate.  Outside of Memphis, his family name is far more of a hindrance than a help. 

Ford's chances would be substantially better if he ran as a Republican.

Personally, I'd like to see former Congressman Ed Bryant win the seat.  I campaigned for Bryant in his primary run against Lamar Alexander, and would be very willing to do so again. 

I think that it's something of an overstatement; while there's certainly truth that those two primaries in particular are important to gaining momentum and public perception of success, candidates can and have survived defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire. Of course, since I'm backing a New Englander, I'd really like for it to be true that New Hampshire calls the election, but it just doesn't seem supportable with the evidence available from previous elections, and in terms of 2008, the wider the primary field, in terms of the candidates' ideological dispositions and geographical origins, the less relevance any one state primary will hold, I suspect.